Maritha on Counseling: Unrecognized Genius: The Story of
Alfred Adler

Maritha Pottenger

Alfred Adler was born February 7, 1870 near Vienna. He graduated from the University of Vienna in 1895 and began practice as an
ophthalmologist in 1898. He subsequently switched to general practice and then
to neurology. At Freud’s invitation, in 1902, Adler joined Freud’s Wednesday
evening discussion circle. The invitation may have come as a result of two
defenses of Freud’s theories which Adler wrote.

During the next decade, Adler was both in and out of the
Freudian circle. Freud was in full support of Adler’s Study of Organ
Inferiority, but disapproved of the aggression instinct when Adler
introduced it in 1908. Later, in 1923, long after Adler had discarded instinct
theory, Freud incorporated the aggression instinct into psychoanalysis. Adler
declared, “I enriched psychoanalysis by the aggressive drive. I gladly make
them a present of it!” (p. 36 Corsini)

The increasing divergence and disagreements of Freud and
Adler led to disillusion in the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society. In 1911, Adler
resigned as its president. Freud later forced a choice between himself and
Adler and several members resigned and formed the Society for Free
Psychoanalytic Research, the forerunner of the Internationale Vereinigung für
Individualpsychologie. In 1914, they published the first issue of Zeitschrift
für Individualpsychologie (Journal of Individual Psychology).

Adler and his co-workers continued to develop the social
view of the neuroses. In 1922, Adler initiated a child guidance center within
the community—perhaps the first community outreach program. Adler and his
colleagues promoted public family education. These centers were so successful
that Vienna School authorities invited several Adlerians to plan a school along
Adlerian lines. The school emphasized encouragement, class discussions,
democratic principles, the responsibility of children for themselves and for
each other. In 1922, Adler introduced family therapy.

Adler was invited to the United States in 1926 to lecture
and demonstrate and he spent the time between 1926 and 1934, when Fascism took
over in Austria, divided between the United States and abroad. He died while
on a lecture tour in Aberdeen, Scotland on May 27, 1937. (Interesting note: Adler told friends the day before he died that he knew his dreams had been
good because he woke up with a smile on his face.)

Although some chroniclers of psychological history talk as
though Adler were just a student of Freud, most recognize his independence and
many contributions which he made to psychology. Indeed, Adler probably
originated more ideas which are now accepted in psychology, without
acknowledgment to the source, than any other person. Alfred Adler once said he
was more concerned that his theories survived than that people remember to
associate his theories with his name. Apparently, his wish was granted. One
commentator, Ellenberger: “It would not be easy to find another author from
which so much has been borrowed from all sides without acknowledgment than
Adler.” (p.44 Corsini) Karen Horney’s discussions of “neurotic ambition,” “the
need for perfection” and “the category of power” all build on Adler. Several
authors have pointed to the points of agreement between Adler’s theories and
the neo-Freudians. Indeed, Fritz Wittels had proposed the neo-Freudians ought
more properly be called “neo-Adlerians” (p. 44 Corsini). Adler’s concepts
included a value psychology, and students such as Victor Frankl and Rollo May
have acknowledged their debts to Adler. Frankl writes: “What he ... achieved
and accomplished was no less than a Copernican switch .... Beyond this, Alfred
Adler may well be regarded as an existential thinker and as a fore-runner of
the existential-psychiatric movement.” (p. 38 Corsini) Albert Ellis has noted
the parallels of his system to Adler’s ideas, and Abraham Maslow noted the
contribution of Adler’s philosophies to the humanistic viewpoint in
psychology. Several Adlerian concepts, such as the importance of birth order
and inferiority feelings are part of even “pop psychology” with no real
recognition of the originator.

Alfred Adler’s theories, like any other system, rest on
certain basic assumptions. He viewed people always within a social context,
felt one cannot isolate the individual from the environment within which s/he
operates. Gestalt psychologists were among the first to recognize this,
although humanistic psychology in general is placing increasing emphasis on the
interplay of people and their surroundings. Adler’s psychology is an
interpersonal one. He studied transactions and interactions. Adler emphasized
the development of a feeling of belonging, of being a part of a larger, social
reality and wishing to contribute to it. This he called Gemeinschaftsgefühl or
social interest.

Adler rejected dichotomies and reductionism. He emphasized
holism: even though a person may feel subjectively AS IF the conscious moves
in one direction and the unconscious in another, all part-functions serve the
individual as a whole—his or her goals and style of life.

Adler treated the concept of the unconscious as an adjective
rather than a noun. That which is unconscious is not understood. He assumed
people CREATE antagonistic feelings, ideas and values because they are
unwilling to move towards solving their problems.

To understand an individual, Adler studied that person’s
lifestyle—or map of cognitive organization. Each of us is assumed to develop a
lifestyle early in life, to help us organize experience—understand, predict and
control it. Our lifestyle is based on our perceptions, some of which are
inevitably biased, so the lifestyle comes to contain some mistakes. Adler
stressed understanding people phenomenologically—from each one’s individual,
subjective viewpoint, rather than “objectively.” He said, “We must be able to
see with his eyes and listen with his ears.” (p. 40 Corsini)

Adler emphasized the “becoming” aspects of life—that people
are pulled from ahead, not just pushed from behind. People strive to reach
certain goals. They act AS IF the attainment of their goals will give them
security and self-esteem.

This striving of human beings was variously described as
completion, superiority, self-realization, self-actualization, etc. Adler
distinguished between striving solely for the individual’s greater glory, which
he defined as socially useless and striving for the purpose of problem solving,
overcoming, making the world a better place.

Thus, Adler defined humankind as choosing, creative, and
self-determined: able to choose the goals they pursue. This freedom to choose
introduced the ideas of meaning and value into psychology. In 1931, Adler
authored What Life Should Mean to You. He emphasized that the “iron
logic of social living” (p.41 Corsini) demands some capacity in all of us for
coexisting and interrelating with our fellow (wo)man. Even with severe
psychopathology, social interest is not extinct. Adler’s definition of mental
health included the notion of empathy and interest in contributing to the
common welfare.

The neurotic was seen as basically a discouraged person—one
who either never developed—or lost—the courage to meet life’s tasks. Adler
included society, work, and sex as tasks we all face and with which we learn to
cope. Adler alluded to, but never specifically named the spiritual task—that
people seek to define the nature of the universe, the possible existence and
nature of God and how one relates to these concepts when one creates them.

The neurotic is convinced of his/her inferiority and the
hostility of the world. Rather than coping directly with life, the neurotic
strives for personal superiority through overcompensation, wearing a mask,
withdrawal, attempting only safe tasks where the outcome is assured to be
successful, and other ploys for protecting his/her self-esteem. S/he creates
excuses, symptoms, evasions in order to protect his/her self-esteem. Adler was
fond of saying, “Man is but a drop of water ... but a very conceited drop.”
(p.192 Way) Adler also described the neurotic as having a “hesitating attitude”
towards life, as a “yes-but personality” and an “If only ... personality.” (p. 41
Corsini) (All of which pre-dates Eric Berne, of course!)

Life thus demands courage—a willingness to take risks even
when results are unknown or may not be liked. Because we are responsible,
self-determining individuals who create and choose our own reality, we behave
AS IF life were really the way we perceive it. The self-fulfilling prophecy
thus becomes important. We give meaning to life, and live our lives the way we
have ascribed meaning. Optimists tend to have happy lives. Because our meaning
is subjective and our perceptions are limited, we may fall prey to certain
myths, feeling they are truth. Adler called these “basic mistakes” (p.57
Corsini). Possible basic mistakes include:

1. Overgeneralizing. This usually involves an implicit “all”
or “always.” e.g. “The world is hostile.”

3. Misperceptions about life and its demands. In severe
form, this includes delusions and hallucinations. Milder forms might be, “I’m
such an unlucky person!”

4. Denying or minimizing one’s own worth. E.g. Adler talked
about what Berne later called the game of “Stupid.”

5. Faulty values. E.g. “Personal aggrandizement is the most
important thing in life.”

Thus, an individual’s problems are seen as arising from
faulty perceptions, goals, values, and learning. The task of therapy is to
reeducate. Patients are seen as discouraged. Therapy is set up as two equals
cooperating in the reeducation. The patient learns to have faith in the self,
to trust and to love. The individual develops social interest—a feeling of
belonging and contributing in the world. Since therapy is learning, anyone and
everyone can change. The inscription on the door at the entrance to the
Guidance Clinic for Juvenile Delinquency in Vienna was “IT IS NEVER TOO LATE.”
(p. 74 Corsini)

Let us follow the Adlerian scheme of personality development
briefly through. Rather than asking the degree to which heredity vs.
environment influences the individual, Adler emphasized: “How does the
individual USE his(her) heredity and environment?” The emphasis is on wholism
and usefulness. Children attempt to master their environments. They learn
about their strengths, weaknesses, abilities, and their place in the universe.
Because of their youth, many children make poor evaluations. From here, we get “basic
mistakes.” Adler emphasized the importance of a child’s place within the
family constellation (including birth order), but it was NOT a causal,
one-to-one relationship—e.g. “Oldest is such and such,” etc. Adler said one
must consider the entire context and the psychological meaning of the position
for the child. Similarly, handicaps, organ inferiorities, being an orphan,
etc. may become of primary importance in a child’s definition of his/her place
in the world and functioning.

Adler felt children strive for a piece of “territory”—each
one wants abilities and attributes which s/he feels grant feelings of worth,
belonging, and having a place. The child’s process of becoming inevitably
involves some biased perceptions and conclusions, what Adler called “fictions.”
Children create a cognitive map to cope with the world. This inevitably
diverges from reality in some areas. Part of the child’s cognitive map is
her/his “life style”—long range goals, and conditions the person feels
necessary for his/her security. E.g., “If only ..., then I ....” (p. 48
Corsini) Life style convictions include: 1. The self-concept. 2. The
self-ideal. 3. Our picture of the world (Weltbild), and our conception of its
demands on us. 4. Our ethical standards.

Adler felt that when self-concept and self-ideal were too
divergent, and those convictions were “central to our sense of existence” (p.48
Corsini), inferiority feelings ensued. Similarly, a lack of congruence between
our self concept and our picture of the world could result in inferiority
feelings, often called feelings of inadequacy or lack of mastery or lack of
competence. Discrepancies between ethical standards and one’s self concept
result in inferiority feelings in the moral realm (of which guilt is one
variant).

Feeling inferior is not considered abnormal. It is only
when the individual begins to act AS IF s/he were truly inferior (e.g.
developing symptoms) that the individual gets labeled sick or, in Adlerian
terms, “discouraged.” To understand someone, Adlerians seek to know his/her
lifestyle, the tasks confronting him/her, immediate goals, and her/his coping
behavior.

Like Freud, Adler agreed on the importance of the early
years and early experience, emphasizing not just what happened—but the child’s
INTERPRETATION of events. He felt many parents unknowingly pamper their
children. His definition of pampering included doing anything for a child
which s/he could do for him/herself. When asked to what ideal one should bring
up children, Adler said, “Make your child independent.” (p. 238 Way) He
advocated being unsentimental and objective with children—neither ridiculing
nor exaggerating their achievements. Adler emphasized honesty, and a
consistency to a chosen line, combined with a willingness to change methods and
directions when appropriate. Children learn much and develop their cognitive
maps and lifestyle in reaction to “test situations”. Test situations occur with
illness, later-born siblings, step-parents and various other crises. Whether
the child uses such events to feel and act inferior—choosing to play the role
of victim—or as a challenge to grow and develop gives clues to his/her
lifestyle and basic assumptions. As many therapists have pointed out—believe
actions over words. Adler was fond of saying, “Close your eyes to what a man
says, and look at what he does.” (p. 316 Way)

Adler did discuss projection, excuses, and other coping
mechanisms (defense mechanisms in Freudian terms). But where Freud emphasized
them as defenses of the ego against the instincts of the Id, Adler saw them as
problem-solving devices, which a person sometimes used to protect his/her
self-esteem. The neurotic individual avoids, postpones and does everything the
long way around to “save face.” If s/he expects to fail, s/he arranges in some
way to salvage some self-esteem. (E.g. Since I feel I’ll fail the exam anyway,
I don’t study. Then I can feel I failed because of not studying, not because
of basic stupidity.)

Adler also saw dreams as problem-solving activities, as
rehearsals for future possible actions, rather than going over old problems
(the Freudian view). He felt dreams are used to create moods which move us
towards or away from the next day’s activities. Adler rejected the idea of
fixed symbolism in dreams. He was fond of the example of two boys who dreamed
they wished to be a horse, one to bear responsibility for the family and the
other to outstrip all others!

Some of the other differences between Freud and Adler can be
summarized (p. 43 Corsini):

1 F. Felt he was objective.

1 A. Emphasized the subjective (phenomenological)
viewpoint. Emphasized the relativity of truth, and the impossibility of
knowing absolute Truth.

2 F. Developed a physiological basis for explaining some of
his theories.

2 A. Used a SOCIAL psychology.

3 F. Emphasized causality. Came from a nineteenth century
physics background which emphasized mechanical forces.

3 A. Emphasized the purposive nature of human beings—not
just the interplay of mechanical forces, but with innate goals of self actualization.

4 F. Reductionistic and antagonistic. Individual made up of
conflicting parts.

7 A. Enhancing the individual and social interest the
goal of psychotherapy.

8 F. People as victims of their instinctual lives.

8 A. People choose most of what happens to them, and always
control their attitude towards everything that happens.

9 F. Theories of child development based on free association
of adults.

9 A. Theories of child development based on children studied
directly in families, schools and family education centers.

10 F. Emphasis on the Oedipal situation and its resolution.
(Not supported by anthropology.)

10 A. Emphasis on the family constellation and the child’s
adaptations, interpretations, reactions to it.

11 F. Other people are competitors.

11 A. Other people are our equals and we need to cooperate
in life.

12 F. Women are inferior (“Anatomy is destiny”) and feel
inferior because they envy men their penis.

12 A. Women feel inferior because they are culturally
undervalued. They envy men their power.

13 F. Neurosis is sexually based.

13 A. Neurosis arises from a failure in learning, from
misperceptions.

14 F. “Neurosis is the price we pay for our civilization.”

14 A. “Neurosis is the price we pay for our lack of
civilization.”

What then, of Adler and the humanistic approach to
astrology? Many of my basic assumptions correspond to Adler’s. I am in total
agreement with Adler’s emphasis on the relativity of Truth. It seems a part of
our ego-centricity that although we no longer put Earth in the center of the
solar system, in terms of ego, we often feel the universe revolves around us.
The neurotic, particularly, Adler felt, expected “the universe to apologize to
him for its existence and to offer him a suitable explanation of its why and
wherefore before he will consent to have anything to do with it.” (p. 192 Way)
Adler was fond of saying, “Anyone who puts the question ‘What is the meaning of
life and the purpose of the universe?’ is asking the question in the wrong
form. The real question is: ‘What meaning do YOU give to life and what
purpose do YOU attribute to the universe?’“ (p. 193 Way) I too, feel meaning
is terribly important and totally subjective. Each of us must define meaning
and life for ourselves, and it is a constant, evolutionary process. As Lewis Way said, “The problems they [life’s tasks] pose can never be solved once and for all,
but demand from the individual a continuous and creative movement towards
adaptation.” (p. 49 Corsini)

I am in full agreement with the need for constant growth and
adaptation in life, with subjectivity being a fact of life. Adler’s discussion
of basic assumptions (and mistakes) also meshes with my concepts of human
experience. I agree all human beings do interpret, selectively attend to their
experience according to their values, assumptions, etc.

With Adler, I agree on the importance of the social context.
People cannot be separated from the social environment in which they interact.
The whole picture is important. Similarly, I feel it behooves us to recall
that human beings are whole—even when we feel conflicting sides or parts, there
is an underlying message or meaning for our human organism as a totality.
Similarly, the horoscope is a whole—though many break it down into various
parts. Searching for themes helps us see the totality of the person and the chart.

Adler’s emphasis on people as choosing, self-determining
individuals is also a part of my world view. His view of neurosis as a failure
of learning also fits my perceptions. His discussion of the “masculine protest”
and women’s reactions to cultural undervaluing helps to point out many of the
shortcomings and outright distortions in Freudian theory. Adler falls short a
bit, perhaps, in his emphasis on individuals adapting to society. He is very
big on social interest—perhaps too big. He did emphasize that contributing to
society did NOT mean acceptance of the status quo and conformity. He felt
contributing people also help society to change and grow. However, reading his
ideas, I often felt individual adaptation to society was over-emphasized and the
impact of societal conditioning and proscribing behavior paid insufficient
attention.

In my view, Adler could be said to have given psychology the
Ninth House of the horoscope—our long-range goals, values, the pull of the
future, the importance of belief systems. He also emphasized the family
constellation—the Third and Fourth Houses—and indeed all the air houses with
his focus on interactions with others. The urge for mastery and competence is
certainly a part of all the earth houses, and the drive towards becoming must
certainly include the Fifth as well. Where Freud attempted to reduce almost
everything to a sexual origin, thus limiting people basically to the Fifth and
Eighth Houses, Adler’s psychology was much broader. I feel it shows us more of
the total person.

If astrologers were to learn one idea from Adler, I hope
that it would be the concept of basic assumptions and that these are our
INTERPRETATIONS of reality—not reality itself. In exactly the same way, a
horoscope is a blueprint for us of a person’s INTERPRETATION of reality—not
that reality itself. (Of course, there is the basic philosophical split over:
Does reality per se exist, or only everyone’s interpretation and perception of
reality?) A horoscope does NOT show us what an individual’s parents are like.
A horoscope shows us those parts of him/herself an individual tends to select,
attend to, experience in his/her relation with his/her parents. The horoscope
shows OUR experience, perception of our parents—not any objective reality.

The Adlerian approach to psychotherapy (cooperative) can be
useful to the astrological counselor as well. Paying attention to what is done
more than what is said, giving the unexpected response rather than falling into
an individual’s script (e.g. Everybody hates me.), modeling love and trust and
social interest are all useful ideas.

With the Adlerians I agree: “It is never too late.” And a
horoscope is a marvelous tool for seeing people’s strengths and areas of
potential mastery as well as possible conflicts, “fictions” or “basic mistakes.”
Adler gave us a psychology of hope, love and power. That’s the kind of
astrology I’d like to see practiced world-wide.